If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I believe that to be the reason there are National Guards - for domestic emergencies. I just do not believe there to be any reason to have a domestic army.

We already have a domestic army. Corret? The topic of discussion is the mission/employment of that already standing domestic army.

One of the legacy issues, for example, with using the National Guard in domestic emergencies is that you are GENERALLY asking people from the impact area to leave their families and loved ones to aid the general populace. Often with limited equipment and capabilities. While effective to a point, there comes a point in time where we all, seemingly, would become as or more concerned with our personal lives than we would with the locals.

One of the advantages to using a deployable military force from outside the impact area is the capability to mobilize thousands of trained, disciplined, highly organized individuals complete with organic support (food, water, comms, transportation (ground/air), C2/C3) in a relatively short time period. Depending on the situation pre-planned and pre-deployed personnel and equipment could be in place prior to the on-set of the event.

Keeping in mind we are not talking about deployment for the 1 v 1 car accident or minor event. We are talking about deployment for a response to an issue that has or will rapidly overwhelmed the local or regional response capability.

To suggest that the local or state government, even supplemented by the massive various Federal response elements as outlined in the National Response Framework or Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 would be enough in the event of a terrorist attack on the CONUS using biological, nuclear, or improvised nuclear weapons is incorrect.

I need someone to explain to me why we have Guard and reserve troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are deploying active duty troops to guard the homeland.

It makes sense to have a rapid response force here, but can't the National Guard do that? Isn't that what they are *supposed* to do?

We have Guard/Reserves in Iraq and Afghanistan because we don't have enough regular Army troops to get the job done and provide a rotation for those deployed.

The reason the National Guard/Reserves don't serve as a rapid response force in the manner being suggested here is their civilian jobs. The troops that are forming the center pieces of the rapid response force are ready at Notification plus ?/2/4/6/8/12 hours (N + X) to deploy or begin deployment to the area. The Guard/Reserve may have longer lead times than that, especially depending on where they may be coming from.

The faster one is able to put a coordinated response together the better one is able to stay on top of and in front of the response effort. Research has shown, and Katrina proved again, that a slow, haphazard response triggers a series of cascading events that serve only to geometerically complicate the overall response.

I said originally that depending on the scope and nature of employment, this could be a good thing. If this rapid reaction force is routinely deployed for relatively minor emergencies, it would be problematic, I think.

Then let's bring 20,000 of those Guard troops stateside, and let them be deployed here. Then, replace them with the 20,000 active duty troops that are planned to be deployed stateside.

Or better yet, let's get ALL those Guard troops out of Iraq, and let them have stateside duty if they are activated.

This topic came up at work with the same arguments going around. There would be no difference between activated NG troops and Active Duty Military. THere are already hundreds of thousands of Active Duty Military stationed stateside at any time, giving a few of them a domestic "job" seems more reasonable than taxing and already overworked part time volunteer force.

I feel ill that I actually put for the some of the same arguments as Joe yesterday on another board. I knew there was something funny in that flu shot last week!

Okay, here's my thing--if government has a resource, it's going to use it. Period.

If there is a standing army on home soil, government is going to use that standing army on home soil, emergency or not. I do not believe it is right or fair or just or legal to use soldiers in domestic situations that are not emergencies, and yet I believe in my heart that that is how they would be used. Because the government would have the resource. And government uses its resources, necessary or not.

National Guard, Reserves, and a streamlined approach to bringing troops stateside in an emergency--that's the way I'll run the world when I'm promoted to the position.

Not only that--but I thought it was ultra spooky that the first "Homeland Brigade" became active (if that's the right word) pretty much simultaneously with the onset of the public's knowledge of the current financial blow-up. I don't doubt it was coincidence... but what if the first "emergency" had been a run on the banks? Would that have been an appropriate and legal way to use troops? Who would be making the call? What precedent would there be? Would these troops be armed? What kind of position would that put us all in?

I repeat--very, very roughly paraphrasing and referencing Thoreau--government is going to use a standing army if it has it because government uses its resources... a standing army on home soil would be used on home soil, whether it was needed or not, and that is a HORRENDOUS position to deliberately put ourselves in as a democracy.

I feel ill that I actually put for the some of the same arguments as Joe yesterday on another board. I knew there was something funny in that flu shot last week!

Yeah, well, that has been know to happen from time to time. I've been told something like I'm not as big a prick as I've been thought after people have gotten to know better...of course, now that I think about it, these comments have come from women who got to know me better...while I'm not really sure what they were trying to get at now that I think about it, I'm sure it was positive.

Be well, Dan.

Honest Regards,

Joe S.

P.S. - That cheap feeling you have from agreeing with me...yeah...that is going to have to wear off sorta' like a skunk smell...won't come off in the shower.